There’s some audio issues in this podcast, which was delayed for quite a bit.
The news includes:
Let us know what you think.
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE ENDING AND EVENTS OF MASS EFFECT 3. DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WISH THE GAME TO BE SPOILED FOR YOU.
In this day and age, one learns to take internet outrage with a heavy dollop of salt. The videogame community tends to be reactionary in the worst way, for a few reasons: they tend to be young, they tend to express their immediate feelings almost as a stream of consciousness, and let’s face it, the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory comes into play as well.
When it comes to game endings, when I hear that the community is upset about a game’s ending, I almost always take that as a good sign that the ending is daring and provocative. For example, there was an outcry over the abruptness of the ending of Halo 2, which had the nerve to conclude with a cliffhanger. The 2009 Prince of Persia reboot ended with the player undoing all of the work to free an ancient evil god they’d just imprisoned.
So when I heard that there was a growing outcry about the endings of Mass Effect 3, my interest peaked, because invariably, that meant the story was provocative and daring, instead of predictable and boring.
Bethesda Softworks vice president of marketing Pete Hines is critzing publishers and developers who shoehorn multiplayer into their games that doing such a thing is “a waste of time” and advises, “Just drop it, don’t bother…it’ll make for a worse game.”
In an interview with Next Gen BIZ, Hines states that using online multiplayer as a tool to prevent used game trade-ins and rental simply doesn’t work, and robs developers of valuable man-hours.
Hines stated:
“(People ask us) for a game like Skyrim or Prey 2, why doesn’t it have multiplayer? Well, our question is always the opposite when we talk to a developer. If you’re doing multiplayer, why are you doing multiplayer? What are you trying to accomplish?
“If you’re doing it just to check a box or because every other publisher says you’ve got to have multiplayer, then just drop it, don’t bother, it’s a waste of time, a giant distraction and it’ll make for a worse overall game.
“We want the best game possible. If that’s a singleplayer game that’s 15 to 20 hours, then make that! Don’t waste your time on features that don’t make the game better.”
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Prey 2 are two Bethesda properties that will lack multiplayer, but one of the tools to encourage games to keep both games will be downlodable content and, even more important, good communications with the game communities and nurturing the fandom for both games.
By now everyone is used to paying more for Rock Band than meets the eye. The game disc is usually packed in several bundles for guitars, drums and, of course, stand alone. With The Beatles: Rock Band, MTV Games plans to release one product SKU, a game only disc. That game only disc, on the Wii is going to cost the same as other consoles: $59.99.
You remember when Wii games were $49.99 and everyone made titles that hit this price point or lower? MTV isn’t going to stick to this standard, regardless of “last gen graphics” because you’ll buy it anyway, right? Rock Band is one of those games that has hit huge strides in the market over the last few years as people buy big plastic instruments to rock their house.
Now we’re going to see if those same people willing to pay $10.00 more than normal in order to play The Beatles songs. The Wii has a large audience of gamers but they’re the style of gamer that wants a good value for their product, after all, the Wii is cheaper than every other console and the games probably should match its differences compared to games for the other consoles.
This is an interesting decision, as the market plunges into despair MTV gouges games for $10.00 more because “The Beatles” happens to be in the title. Are you going to pay more for the Beatles? Not us.
(Thanks, 1up)
